How to reduce meaningless end of season games

[Sport]

I think that you just have to cope with the idea that some games are going to be a bit meaningless at the end of the season, except for hoping that draft order is some kind of thing to play for.

The real issue here is with season ticket holders. Season ticket holders in Indy were basically forced to pay for what amounted to be 4 exhibition games this season. It's bad enough being forced to pay for the actual exhibition games and this season they were forced to pay for two more. From what I've read, Roger Goodell is not happy about this and the league is looking for a solution.

BBTV is definitely on the right track. It could help lower the number of meaningless games but there's no way to eliminate them.

But they get the other side of the coin in watching the best team in the league, and get home field advantage, with its ticketing advantages through the playoffs. A couple of meaningless regular season games balanced against home games in the playoffs seems a decent balance.

Honest to God, there are times when I wonder why I even bother replying to you. No offense, but it's like trying to explain something unpleasant to Pollyanna.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it's not fair to ask people to pay for something and then deliver much less than the advertised product. The Colts aren't marketing their tickets by saying "hey, there's a good chance you're buying 8 games of NFL football but you might only end up with 5. But that's OK because you'll get the privilege of watching a really good team for those 5 games. We can't promise you we'll be that good but there is always a chance. So please don't be upset when we screw you with a couple more exhibition games in December."

But with the Cleveland Browns, it's more like 1 or 2.

I actually like the idea of detailing the schedule this way. Wrapping up the season against Division opponents is a good idea. I hated how this year the Bengals had played all of their divisional opponents by t like the 12th or 13th week.

Me too, but what bothered me even more was that the Steelers didn't play the Ravens until after the Bengals had already played the Ravens twice. Obviously, it didn't matter this year as the Bengals swept everybody, but what if a Bunch of Ravens had gone down? Then the Steelers would've gotten two cracks at a Ravens team that was inferior to the team the Bengals had to play. I'd like to see the division games spread out between both halves of the season. Three in the first half and three in the second half.

[BaltimoreFan]

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.* If I'm running a business, I'm charging as much as anyone would pay also. A lot of teams could probably even raise prices, and still have a waiting list. Nothing wrong with that. I also don't feel that a team shouldn't rest players if they've clinched, nor should anyone force them to play a player that they don't want to put at risk. Therefore, the only solution (at least that I've thought of, I'm sure there may be more) is to try to arange things in a way to put some more (potentially) meaningful games at the end of the year.

I completely agree here. The only solution I would be ok with is to change the schedule around. Although it still probably wouldn't completely solve the problem as the Colts still probably would have rested their starters. But IMO, thats their right to choose to do for playing so well (however I do feel it hurts you for the playoffs).

*except for preseason games. It's criminal that they force season-ticket holders to pay full price for two "practices". That's a complete scam, and everyone associated with the team / league (because I think it's a league mandate, not sure though) should be ashamed of themselves.

I'll admit this seems sneaky, but I don't really see a problem here either. It goes back to demand. If it was a horrible deal and people didn't buy season tickets as a result, then teams would do it. Its a result of the craziness of some fans. If we should be mad at anyone, it should be the fans stupid enough to go all out just for season tickets.

[BBTV]

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.* If I'm running a business, I'm charging as much as anyone would pay also. A lot of teams could probably even raise prices, and still have a waiting list. Nothing wrong with that. I also don't feel that a team shouldn't rest players if they've clinched, nor should anyone force them to play a player that they don't want to put at risk. Therefore, the only solution (at least that I've thought of, I'm sure there may be more) is to try to arange things in a way to put some more (potentially) meaningful games at the end of the year.

I completely agree here. The only solution I would be ok with is to change the schedule around. Although it still probably wouldn't completely solve the problem as the Colts still probably would have rested their starters. But IMO, thats their right to choose to do for playing so well (however I do feel it hurts you for the playoffs).

*except for preseason games. It's criminal that they force season-ticket holders to pay full price for two "practices". That's a complete scam, and everyone associated with the team / league (because I think it's a league mandate, not sure though) should be ashamed of themselves.

I'll admit this seems sneaky, but I don't really see a problem here either. It goes back to demand. If it was a horrible deal and people didn't buy season tickets as a result, then teams would do it. Its a result of the craziness of some fans. If we should be mad at anyone, it should be the fans stupid enough to go all out just for season tickets.

Ah, the "nobody's holding a gun to your head" argument. You're right, of course, but while it's "sound" business practice, it just seems wrong. Since every preseason game is sold out due to season-ticket sales (in most parks), maybe what they should do is take the price of the two preseason games, and just divide it out amongst the 8 regular season games. The total price would be exactly the same, but at least it would seem more fair... kinda.

[crashcarson15]

Yeah, as I've said before letting in your biggest rival is more interesting than just any other conference opponent.

[The_Admiral]

Boy, we sure got the Saintsfan experience in this one, huh. hoooooooooooboy. If I squint and look at my laptop from juuust the right angle, I can actually see the giant pulsating vein in BBTV's neck.

[infrared41]

Take this season, the Colts at 13-0, with three games to go the next best would have to be 10-3 at best to still be in the hunt. That doesn't seem so likely. If we go to the next week, and a team on say 11-3, a divisional rival would have to be 9-5 to still be in catching distance. And how many playoff tiebreakers are ever between divisional rivals anyway? Especially if a team is a distance clear, the type of team who might otherwise rest players.

I am not against the idea of having fewer meaningless games, but my point is that it is impossible to stop, and I don't feel that this formula of organising the schedule actually does much to end the issue. The Colts won there division by 5 games, after losing there last 2 games. Know amount of fiddling with the schedule would stop the Colts resting players over the last game or two in that situation. The Saints lost there last 3 games and still won there division by 4. Every year a team or two have that kind of lead in there division. They are always going to rest players in that situation.

Jeezus.

You're debunking a plan by picking one of the most extreme examples out there - a team that goes 14-0 in a relatively weak division.

For the last time I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. AGAIN - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO LIMIT IT (even if my plan isn't the best, which it very well may not be.)

The Colts had only one division game in their last three. That means that they beat TN and HOU twice before week 15 (and JAX once). So yes, even if their schedule was adjusted this year, their final three games would have been meaningless. That's just going to happen. I don't get how you don't get how I'm not trying to eliminate this from happening, but simply reduce the chances. You can always find the most extreme circumstance to argue against it. When I have more time, I'll take a look at some of the other division races and see how they might have been changed.

And for crying out loud - there is NOT the same as their. They mean two different things.

Sorry BBTV, I can't help but laugh. If it's any consolation, I share your frustration when it comes to trying to talk sports with Lil' Pollyanna Saintsfan.

[DEAD!]

.. besides... the AFC South wasn't a relatively weak division... judging by the records, it was relatively strong division.

[Saintsfan]

Take this season, the Colts at 13-0, with three games to go the next best would have to be 10-3 at best to still be in the hunt. That doesn't seem so likely. If we go to the next week, and a team on say 11-3, a divisional rival would have to be 9-5 to still be in catching distance. And how many playoff tiebreakers are ever between divisional rivals anyway? Especially if a team is a distance clear, the type of team who might otherwise rest players.

I am not against the idea of having fewer meaningless games, but my point is that it is impossible to stop, and I don't feel that this formula of organising the schedule actually does much to end the issue. The Colts won there division by 5 games, after losing there last 2 games. Know amount of fiddling with the schedule would stop the Colts resting players over the last game or two in that situation. The Saints lost there last 3 games and still won there division by 4. Every year a team or two have that kind of lead in there division. They are always going to rest players in that situation.

Jeezus.

You're debunking a plan by picking one of the most extreme examples out there - a team that goes 14-0 in a relatively weak division.

For the last time I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. AGAIN - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO LIMIT IT (even if my plan isn't the best, which it very well may not be.)

The Colts had only one division game in their last three. That means that they beat TN and HOU twice before week 15 (and JAX once). So yes, even if their schedule was adjusted this year, their final three games would have been meaningless. That's just going to happen. I don't get how you don't get how I'm not trying to eliminate this from happening, but simply reduce the chances. You can always find the most extreme circumstance to argue against it. When I have more time, I'll take a look at some of the other division races and see how they might have been changed.

And for crying out loud - there is NOT the same as their. They mean two different things.

Sorry BBTV, I can't help but laugh. If it's any consolation, I share your frustration when it comes to trying to talk sports with Lil' Pollyanna Saintsfan.

OK, first off I have never resorted to personal invective in my arguments. It seems somewhat to be an admission of defeat, if you can't argue on the facts of the case involved. I can't see why personal invective is necessary just because someone disagrees with you.

Let me state a summary of my case.

Firstly I do genuinely believe this is not a problem that you can even sensibly limit. I've already shown that even BBTV's solution is unlikely to end really any of this.

Secondly the problem is not in scheduling, its in tiebreaking rules, and I have suggested that perhaps touchdowns scored or touchdowns scored minus touchdowns conceded (touchdown difference if you like) would be more effective as a tiebreaker to end the 'problem' of sending in backups. (It might also encourage teams to play till the end of blowout games for what it is worth).

Thirdly (and this is where there is some disagreement) the problem is not with the crowds who have bought season tickets, in my view. (They knew the risks they were taking) It is in the integrity of the competition. If some teams have played 16 teams fielding starters, and others have played 15 teams fielding starters and 1 fielding back ups, that seems a little unfair. Problem is I don't see how you can stop that. Every year one or two teams will be at 12-2 or 13-1, and are likely to be able to rest players in the last game or two of the season. Every year in the last week of the season teams are going to be assured of a playoff place, have nothing to play for. Its the nature of the beast.

All that being said, I do think that there is value in the idea of NFL scheduling week 17 as a week of just divisional match ups. You'd be more likely to have the odd divisional title match (like the Patriots Dolphins game in 2008) and perhaps players would feel more inclined to bust a gut in a meaningless 6-9 vs 7-8 game if they are against a divisional rival.

[BBTV]

Firstly I do genuinely believe this is not a problem that you can even sensibly limit.

Fair enough.

I've already shown that even BBTV's solution is unlikely to end really any of this.

No you haven't.

Secondly the problem is not in scheduling, its in tiebreaking rules, and I have suggested that perhaps touchdowns scored or touchdowns scored minus touchdowns conceded (touchdown difference if you like) would be more effective as a tiebreaker to end the 'problem' of sending in backups. (It might also encourage teams to play till the end of blowout games for what it is worth).

That's insane. The object of the game is to score points, not touchdowns. All this would do is turn it into college where teams try to pile on as many points as possible. The tiebreakers in the NFL are as good as any in any sport. Head to head, record in the division (for divisional championships), record in the conference (for wildcards.) Your record against the competition you are competing against for spots is what counts. Don't see how it can work any other way.

Thirdly (and this is where there is some disagreement) the problem is not with the crowds who have bought season tickets, in my view. (They knew the risks they were taking) It is in the integrity of the competition. If some teams have played 16 teams fielding starters, and others have played 15 teams fielding starters and 1 fielding back ups, that seems a little unfair. Problem is I don't see how you can stop that. Every year one or two teams will be at 12-2 or 13-1, and are likely to be able to rest players in the last game or two of the season. Every year in the last week of the season teams are going to be assured of a playoff place, have nothing to play for. Its the nature of the beast.

I've never denied that. I'm just trying to set up a way for more intense divisional match ups at the end, so that a team is more likely to have to play hard at the end to wrap up their division. You're always going to have a couple meaningless games at the end of the year regardless of...

...you know what? Never mind.

[Saintsfan]

Actually I am generally in favor of the NFL tie breakers, but if you want to limit meaningless games, its a poor tiebreaker. It means that once a team has swept another team in there division they have essentially an extra 1/2 game. If you want to limit meaningless games with backups in, then you need to go down the route of either touchdowns or points. (Either is fine, I went for touchdowns as it might encourage teams to be more attacking, but either way is fine!) But the problem with meaningless games is in part caused by the fact that the tiebreaker is hard and fast, once its decided its decided, and it could be decided relatively early in the season, rather than when the season has finished. Your scheme only slightly increases the likelihood of that happening in the last 3 weeks of the season. But even the teams who have rested players are going to have had 2 weeks or so are going to be able to do it, more often than not.

Here is why your plan is unlikely to really limit meaningless games. How many games between divisional rivals are 'crucial' games in splitting a tie break? Very very few (See an earlier post of mine for the figures on this). And there is no guarantee that your schedule places those games in week 17. So your plan might limit these meaningless games by maybe 1 or 2 every 3 or 4 years. A very minor improvement for a major change in the scheduling and the history of the sport. (For instance Thanksgiving games, making space for bye weeks etc).

Let me ask you this, how many teams fielded under strength teams in week 17 this year? Am I right that it was really only the Colts, Bengals, Saints, Cardinals and Chargers? How many of those would not have been able to if your schedule was in place? Possibly the Bengals, as a lot of their advantage was by doing well in divisional games. But other than that?

[The_Admiral]

I don't mind meaningless games. I'm pretty well footballed out by December anyway. Good to know I'm not missing anything.

[BaltimoreFan]

Here is why your plan is unlikely to really limit meaningless games. How many games between divisional rivals are 'crucial' games in splitting a tie break? Very very few (See an earlier post of mine for the figures on this). And there is no guarantee that your schedule places those games in week 17. So your plan might limit these meaningless games by maybe 1 or 2 every 3 or 4 years. A very minor improvement for a major change in the scheduling and the history of the sport. (For instance Thanksgiving games, making space for bye weeks etc).

Let me ask you this, how many teams fielded under strength teams in week 17 this year? Am I right that it was really only the Colts, Bengals, Saints, Cardinals and Chargers? How many of those would not have been able to if your schedule was in place? Possibly the Bengals, as a lot of their advantage was by doing well in divisional games. But other than that?

I don't think the scheduling option would be used to create crucial games, rather it would give teams incentive to play. Even if a team already clinched a playoff spot, they may still try to kick their divisional rivals out. I could definitely see the Ravens trying to this with the Steelers.

[infrared41]

OK, first off I have never resorted to personal invective in my arguments. It seems somewhat to be an admission of defeat, if you can't argue on the facts of the case involved. I can't see why personal invective is necessary just because someone disagrees with you.

It's not really. You just bring out the worst in me. I feel that your arguments are absurd more often than they're not.

[Saintsfan]

Here is why your plan is unlikely to really limit meaningless games. How many games between divisional rivals are 'crucial' games in splitting a tie break? Very very few (See an earlier post of mine for the figures on this). And there is no guarantee that your schedule places those games in week 17. So your plan might limit these meaningless games by maybe 1 or 2 every 3 or 4 years. A very minor improvement for a major change in the scheduling and the history of the sport. (For instance Thanksgiving games, making space for bye weeks etc).

Let me ask you this, how many teams fielded under strength teams in week 17 this year? Am I right that it was really only the Colts, Bengals, Saints, Cardinals and Chargers? How many of those would not have been able to if your schedule was in place? Possibly the Bengals, as a lot of their advantage was by doing well in divisional games. But other than that?

I don't think the scheduling option would be used to create crucial games, rather it would give teams incentive to play. Even if a team already clinched a playoff spot, they may still try to kick their divisional rivals out. I could definitely see the Ravens trying to this with the Steelers.

Really is that how professional coaches and players are going to be thinking? It might be how the fans want them to think, but I don't really see that coaches would think like that? At least those already in the playoffs, I would have thought, would still want to rest stars rather than taking lumps out of a rival team.

I do think it would add some spice to games involving already eliminated teams, if they were lining up in week 17 against a local, hated rival.

Another issue with BBTV's plan is that it would become more difficult with expansion, if the NFL is considering that at all as a future idea. You would need even number teams in each division.

[BBTV]

Another issue with BBTV's plan is that it would become more difficult with expansion, if the NFL is considering that at all as a future idea. You would need even number teams in each division.

Scheduling formulas are changed all the time with expansion. They changed it this last time with the realignment. In the case of an expansion, they just figure something else out. By then, they'd have a pretty good idea if this system is helping or not. If it's proven that it isn't, then just scrap it and come up with something else.

As for playing hard against division rivals even if you've clinched, I don't really know, but I'd assume that a team would not want any other team in it's division to make the post season, and have a risk of facing them for a third time. I get that it happens all the time, and that both teams would be in the same situation, but I would think that a coach would rather game plan against a team that may not be as familiar with everything they do as a division rival would.

Maybe not though.

[Saintsfan]

But the problem is that if the plan is to have everyone play a divisional rival in the last week, even, then you need even numbers in each division. Otherwise theoretically you are giving teams either an advantage of disadvantage, and you are back to square one.

[BaltimoreFan]

But the problem is that if the plan is to have everyone play a divisional rival in the last week, even, then you need even numbers in each division. Otherwise theoretically you are giving teams either an advantage of disadvantage, and you are back to square one.

Well right now each division does have an equal number of teams and expansion does not appear to be anywhere in the near future. So this argument doesn't really work. I'd rather worry about expansion when it actually happens.

[ESTONES6]

I didn't read all of this cause it's late, but i think there is absolutely NO WAY you can penalize a team for not playing their starters at the end of the season. If its game four of the season, and a running back is listed on the IR for a week, and doesn't play because a toe or something, you can't let him rest then, but not at the end of the season.

As for the fans... you have to realize what you are buying tickets for. This argument that the fans pay to see the best players is complete BS. What about the Rams who have 1 win? who are the fans paying to see then? Now, my Brownies aren't much better, but when you purchase something, you purchase that item with a risk. NFL tickets should be no different.

This idea of penalizing teams through draft picks or refunds needs to be eliminated immediately.

[rams80]

I didn't read all of this cause it's late, but i think there is absolutely NO WAY you can penalize a team for not playing their starters at the end of the season. If its game four of the season, and a running back is listed on the IR for a week, and doesn't play because a toe or something, you can't let him rest then, but not at the end of the season.

As for the fans... you have to realize what you are buying tickets for. This argument that the fans pay to see the best players is complete BS. What about the Rams who have 1 win? who are the fans paying to see then? Now, my Brownies aren't much better, but when you purchase something, you purchase that item with a risk. NFL tickets should be no different.

This idea of penalizing teams through draft picks or refunds needs to be eliminated immediately.

They aren't

Those who do come get to see Steven Jackson and spectacular soul crushing disaster, but most soon leave for the Cardinals game.

[BBTV]

But the problem is that if the plan is to have everyone play a divisional rival in the last week, even, then you need even numbers in each division. Otherwise theoretically you are giving teams either an advantage of disadvantage, and you are back to square one.

But the problem is that you aren't able to read and understand. I get that you need an equal number of teams. I said that if there was expansion, they'd simply have to come up with another solution. It's no big deal. I'm not sure why I waste time typing when you don't seem to actually read things.

I didn't read all of this cause it's late, but i think there is absolutely NO WAY you can penalize a team for not playing their starters at the end of the season. If its game four of the season, and a running back is listed on the IR for a week, and doesn't play because a toe or something, you can't let him rest then, but not at the end of the season.

As for the fans... you have to realize what you are buying tickets for. This argument that the fans pay to see the best players is complete BS. What about the Rams who have 1 win? who are the fans paying to see then? Now, my Brownies aren't much better, but when you purchase something, you purchase that item with a risk. NFL tickets should be no different.

This idea of penalizing teams through draft picks or refunds needs to be eliminated immediately.

You should take a break from walking around your house getting all pumped up for the Browns (even though their season is over, but I guess that's why their fans care so much more), and look at the thread. Nobody has even hinted at penalizing a team for not playing their starters (unless you count somebody's "best interest of the game" nonsense), and nobody has mentioned draft picks. In fact, in the very first post, I stated how neither of those ideas should ever be implemented.